Subject: Re: #1175 Code vs text

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 09:37:12 -0400

John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

> The other issue, which ought to be orthogonal to this but
> impacts it, is that I-Ds are different from published, archival,
> RFCs.  Formally, I-Ds expire after six months and all rights,
> except those covered by the Note Well, revert to the author.

Remind me please, just what rights do the IETF (or implementors)
"lose" upon ID expiration? (Are you talking about more than the right
to use "copyrighted" code?)

General comment: One of the things that continually bothers me about
these discussions is the notion that the IETF may have insufficient
rights to use an IETF contribution and that we are still somewhat
beholden to the whims of the "author" of an IETF Contribution. IMO, we
need to move completely and totally away from that. That is, if
something is an IETF Contribution, there should be no doubts that the
IETF has the necessary rights to use that contribution - from that day
forward with no going back. If an author doesn't like that, they
aren't making an "IETF Contribution", they are doing something else,
and we should discourage such contributions generally. (And, none of
the above says we should be taking away rights from an author, other
than the right to restrict the IETF's usage of the document.)

And, I think it's worth remembering that when one has an author (or is
it an editor?) of say, a WG document, the notion that that author has
rights that may possibly impact the ablity of the IETF/WG (and
implementations) to use that document in the future, something is
rather broken. After all, the WG as a whole has contributed to the
document.

The IETF (as a whole) will not be able to function if it is not very
clear that:

a) once a document is an IETF Contribution, the IETF (and
   implementors) have all the necessary rights going forward.. (where
   necessary means thoses we have agreed are necessary, e.g., as
   enshrined in RFCs)

b) the overwhelming majority of documents discussed in the IETF are
   such documents, and in no cases is a WG document not such a
   document.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:10:40 -0400

--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 09:37 -0400 Thomas Narten
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> impacts it, is that I-Ds are different from published,
>> archival, RFCs.  Formally, I-Ds expire after six months and
>> all rights, except those covered by the Note Well, revert to
>> the author.
> 
> Remind me please, just what rights do the IETF (or
> implementors) "lose" upon ID expiration? (Are you talking
> about more than the right to use "copyrighted" code?)

Thomas, please note the "except those covered by the Note Well"
above.  That is the entire point of my note... and the pointless
of most of this discussion.  The intent of the "Note Well" is to
give the IETF permanent, irrevocable, and unlimited rights to
use, for its purposes and in the development and dissemination
of standards, any words or combination of words that are
written, uttered, projected on a screen in an IETF context, or
otherwise introduced into the IETF.

Asking that those rights be granted redundantly or additional
times doesn't create more rights or limits on the rights granted
by the Note Well.  At best, it just introduces more confusion.  

If one posted an I-D without a single word of boilerplate or any
reference to the word "copyright", it would not impact the
rights of the IETF at all, nor would it reduce the author's
responsibilities under the patent, etc., disclosure policy
(since that is covered in the Note Well also).  

Consequently, as far as the IETF's rights are concerned, the
only value that boilerplate serves is to remind people that
license grants have been made and disclosure obligations
accepted.  It doesn't change anything.

>From that point of view, this entire discussion is about what
rights, in addition to those covered by the Note Well, authors
need to grant as a condition of posting an I-D or publishing a
document.  Those rights and licenses, if any, have to do with
use by people and organizations other than the IETF.  Anything
the IETF itself needs should be covered by the Note Well... and,
if it isn't, that had better be fixed within Note Well because,
otherwise, there are all sorts of ways to game or defeat the
system. 

It is my contention that, as long as we say that I-Ds expire in
six months, any _additional_ rights that are granted by the
author as the consequence of I-D publication expire too.   As
far as IETF usage is concerned, there are no such additional
rights so there is nothing to expire.

So...

> General comment: One of the things that continually bothers me
> about these discussions is the notion that the IETF may have
> insufficient rights to use an IETF contribution and that we
> are still somewhat beholden to the whims of the "author" of an
> IETF Contribution. IMO, we need to move completely and totally
> away from that. That is, if something is an IETF Contribution,
> there should be no doubts that the IETF has the necessary
> rights to use that contribution - from that day forward with
> no going back. If an author doesn't like that, they aren't
> making an "IETF Contribution", they are doing something else,
> and we should discourage such contributions generally. (And,
> none of the above says we should be taking away rights from an
> author, other than the right to restrict the IETF's usage of
> the document.)

That is precisely what the "Note Well" is intended to
accomplish.  As far as I know, it accomplishes it.  Certainly
there has been zero discussion about areas in which it is
inadequate.

> And, I think it's worth remembering that when one has an
> author (or is it an editor?) of say, a WG document, the notion
> that that author has rights that may possibly impact the
> ablity of the IETF/WG (and implementations) to use that
> document in the future, something is rather broken. After all,
> the WG as a whole has contributed to the document.

And the WG as a whole, and all or its participants, have agreed
to IETF use of those contributions as a consequence of the Note
Well.
 
> The IETF (as a whole) will not be able to function if it is
> not very clear that:
> 
>    implementors) have all the necessary rights going forward..
> (where    necessary means thoses we have agreed are necessary,
> e.g., as    enshrined in RFCs)
> 
> b) the overwhelming majority of documents discussed in the
> IETF are    such documents, and in no cases is a WG document
> not such a    document.

Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well is, I believe,
actually more comprehensive than your requirements above.  When
I hit "send" on this note, both its words and its underlying
content become the IETF's to use, forever, in any fashion that
is supportive of the IETF's work and processes.  Acknowledgement
is a courtesy (and might be required by other rules), but is not
a requirement for IETF use of either text or ideas.  Issues
arise about non-IETF uses, but they are separate issues.

     john

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:39:32 -0400

And this leads, for me, to the natural question:
over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of the copyright 
notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:25:13 -0400

Joel,

I could not agree more.  As others have pointed out, this WG
keeps losing focus on what it is talking about and then going
around in circles.

My own belief is that, based on that experience, we should be
trying something different:

(1) At least temporarily, clear the issue tracker -- it seems to
be getting our noses up against individual leaves on trees,
which prevents a look at the whole tree, much less the forest.

(2) Assume that all of the rights the IETF needs should come out
of the Note Well, if only because binding those rights to, e.g.,
RFCs or I-Ds, might subject us to interference if an idea were
picked up from a comment in a meeting or email message.

(3) Ask if there are rights that the IETF needs that are not
covered by the Note Well.  If there are such additional rights,
generate a comprehensive statement of principles about rights
that the IETF heeds and reach consensus on that statement of
principles.  Note that is "principles about rights that the IETF
needs" and not "principles about what should be added to the
Note Well". (See (6) below.)

(4) Only when (3) is settled, ask what rights the IETF wishes to
ensure others have in I-Ds in addition to the IETF's own rights.
If there are any, consider whether either of the principles
"expires in six months" or "Internet Drafts are not an archival
publication series" can survive those rights grants and changes.
If so, seek changes in IETF procedures that would adjust those
principles -- if changes to process principles are needed to
grant, or require granting, additional rights, unless the
community will sign off on those changes of process, decisions
by this WG about them are moot. If there are any such rights
consistent with IETF process (or if the processes can be
modified appropriately), reach consensus on a statement of
principles as to what they are (see (6) below).

(5) Only when (4) is settled, ask what rights the IETF wishes to
ensure others have in RFCs in addition the IETF's own rights.
If there are any such rights, reach consensus on a statement of
principles as to what they are and, if those rights should apply
differentially to different materials, or parts of materials,
published as RFCs, how to delimit which materials are which.
Develop a statement of principles as to what these rights and
boundaries are and reach consensus on that statement.

(6) Once consensus is reached on those statements of desired
rights, pass them to counsel for drafting of text.   When the
counsel-drafted text is ready, review and approve that text in
the WG and the IETF, iterating if needed.

At this point, I have become convinced that the text should be
writen de novo.  Trying to patch or add to existing text has
just helped create the muddle we are so obviously in.   In
particular, I believe that any statements in either RFCs or I-Ds
that simply reaffirm or remind people about rights granted by
the Note Well should explicitly reference that document as the
source of those rights, rather than trying to repeat the grant
of rights in different language.  Until and unless advised
otherwise by counsel, I believe that the database principle that
one avoids problems by having a given information item in only
one place, rather than having [near] duplicates floating around
that can get out of synch, applies to this sort of work too.

I am not sure that is the only way forward, but I think we now
have extensive "running code" that the way we have been trying
to do it is (i) not working as  a process for getting somewhere
and (ii) when it produces a document, that document tends to not
be a close fit with what we are trying to accomplish.  

        john

--On Wednesday, 07 June, 2006 10:39 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> over and above the Note Well, what is the purpose of the
> copyright notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
>> Sure.  See above.  The coverage of the Note Well is, I
>> believe, actually more comprehensive than your requirements
>> above.  When I hit "send" on this note, both its words and
>> its underlying content become the IETF's to use, forever, in
>> any fashion that is supportive of the IETF's work and
>> processes.  Acknowledgement is a courtesy (and might be
>> required by other rules), but is not a requirement for IETF
>> use of either text or ideas.  Issues arise about non-IETF
>> uses, but they are separate issues.
>> 
>>      john
> 
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:30:40 -0700

Joel
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: #1175 Code vs text

> notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?

Uhh - To enforce the use of the Use Authorization Language - which IMHO for
I-D's needs to say that they are introduyctory documents and are not to be
referenced in any form or manner outside of the IETF's Standards Process,
which includes any number of uses that allow publication as a complete or
excerpted document.

I-D's are internal use documents - there is no need or reason that an I-D
which represents an unadopted IP or process, to be reprintable outside the
soiliciation or internal vetting processes - the point is that any other use
demeans the value of the RFC - If all I need to do is publish in an I-D to
get external play, then what do I need RFC's for. This is about the value of
the IETF brand and its Standards Process.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:36:47 -0700

NoteWell is broken... and needs the Sponser's affirmation not the
participants. Also, the Sponser needs to know that their agent may be
working inside a solicitation from the IETF that the Sponser was not aware
of and which contaminates or violates any number of internal IP policies.

The problem is that the IETF alternatievly blurs whether its a "free form
group of professional peer's banded together to create standards" or s
formal standards body with real IP issues to address.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:57:24 +0200

> notice or other rights notices we put in the I-Ds?

I believe that they constitute fair warning to third parties
that the conditions John has described apply.

     Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:31:13 -0400

This , that Note Well and all the related RFCs apply to the document,
is a clear definition of purpose, and one which, if we have consensus 
that it is what we want we can
document in the IPR RFC
get useful legal advice on the best way of achieving

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:52:46 -0400

> that the conditions John has described apply.

While that may be reasonable, I note two things...

(1) The amount and detail of boilerplate text is wildly out of 
proportion relative to what would be needed to do that job.

(2) We do not insist that, e.g., notes posted to IETF mailing 
lists start off (or finish) by saying "I understand that this 
note is subject to the Note Well".  It is not clear why special 
and laborious notices are needed in one case and not the other.

      john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:42:43 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> (2) We do not insist that, e.g., notes posted to IETF mailing lists 
> start off (or finish) by saying "I understand that this note is subject 
> to the Note Well".  It is not clear why special and laborious notices 
> are needed in one case and not the other.

Two coments

1) I wouldn't exclude that we choose to update the required boilerplate
in I-Ds as a result of this discussion, but I do think that for third-party
readers we need to clearly state that IETF IPR rules apply. In fact
we should probably cite BCP 78 as well as BCP 79 in 'status of this memo'.

2) From a purely practical point of view, I am quite happy for drafts to
contain the RFC boilerplate; but maybe the 'status of this memo'
could indicate that the RFC boilerplate only applies if the draft is
approved for RFC publication.

    Brian